RESEARCH NOTE
THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE:
A "CASE" OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY
Donald B. Ball
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Louisville District
Louisville, Kentucky
ABSTRACT
Artifacts resembling drawn brass cartridges cases but obviously
manufactured for a very divergent use are described and discussed.
Preliminary study of these objects suggests that their original function was
totally unrelated to :firearms applications.
One of the most elementary
premises of our profession is that
archaeologists don't put artifacts in the
ground, we merely excavate them.
Though we have become adept at
identifying most recovered objects, it
remains a fact of life that occasionally
"unusual" items are encountered which
defy classification or at least ready
identification. Much as iron pyrite
resembles gold at first glance, some
artifacts may initially appear to be one
thing but upon closer inspection may be
found to have served a totally different
function. Recent experiences have served
to verify the validity of this observation.
In early 1996, I was asked by a
colleague to identify what was thought to
be an expended pre-1880 cartridge case
found by a team from the University of
Kentucky in association with the sealed
remains of a known slave cabin situated
near Bowling Green, Kentucky. According to family history, this structure and
several other nearby buildings at the
Forest Home farmstead (site number
15Wa103; cf Stottman 1996) in Warren
County, (south-central) Kentucky, used
as housing for slaves had been
demolished sometime in the 1870's and
their remnants buried shortly thereafter
beneath about one foot (30.5 cm) of
earth in the process of farmstead
landscaping. After examining the piece amazingly in generally good condition - I
carefully took appropriate measurements
and began to compare these figures with
the specifications of the myriad of
cartridge cases produced since the late
1850's. Most dimensions seemed to
compare closely with several different
larger caliber pistol, rifle, and carbine
cartridge cases which went into
production during or shortly after the
Civil War (see Table 1 for measurements/dimensions of these items) and
there seemed to be little doubt as to the
function of this object. But I remained
troubled. Several things just didn't seem
about
this initial
to "ring tme"
identification. There was neither an
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 12(1997):141-146
141
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
Volume 12
1997
Table 1. Selected "case" dimensions and comparisons
Dimension*
Neck
Diameter
Neck
Base
Rim
Case
(Outer)Diameter Diameter_ u~_ngth
Case"
Springfield, Ohio
___ ___o_.3_8_3_-+--_o_.0_1_1_ +--_o_.3_7_8_ +---,-0.--,
3_96-,---+-_o_._4_11-----j
Bowling Green, Kentucky i
0.51
_-:___ -1_0_._5_59_-+-0_.64
_ 3-_._6_50-+-_ 0 _8_9_1----1
lhicknes-s
1
I
I-
· ---
;
0.535
t50 Remington Navt**
!56-50 Spencer Carbine**- - 0.543
-·· - - · -· 56-52
Spencer
rifle**
0.54
- - ---'-- - -- --+-- ---··--+---·- ·· 50 Remington Pistol**
0.536
0.642
0.562
0.556
0.639
·--··-·--··---0.559
0.639
0.558
0.638
56-56 Spencer Carbine**
0.56
0.56
0.645
· - - - ··*All dimensions stated in inches (for conversion, 1.0 inch =25.4 mm).
**Information extracted from Barnes (1997:394).
--
-··
----~----t-----t------i-----+-
indication of a manufacturer's headstamp
(:frequently but not universally found on
most ammunition) nor was there was any
evidence of the impact of a firing pin on
the rim of the piece though the mouth
and rim of the object displayed no marks
reflecting the forced removal of a bullet
from the case by means of pliers or other
tools. Upon reexamining the object and
again comparing its dimensions with
those of historically produced ammunition, I became increasingly convinced
that it was not a cartridge case. The
question remained, however, "What was
it?".
Several weeks later in the course
of examining an assemblage collected
from the grounds of the David Crabill
house, a restored ca. 1826-1830 brick "I"
house listed on the National Register of
Historic Places on U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers property near Springfield,
(southwestern) Ohio (c£ Ball and Bader
1997), I found myself again being
puzzled by a similar brass cartridge caselike object surface collected from the
site. Though dimensionally smaller (cf.
Table 1) than the example from Bowling
142
0.86
1.156
1.035
-·
0.875
0.875
-
Green, Kentucky, this piece also
resembled a rimfire cartridge case yet
bore neither evidence of a headstamp nor
indication that a bullet had been removed
by firing or otherwise. Its measurements
conformed to the dimensions of no
known round of brass cased rimfire
ammunition. If the first "case" had been
problematical, this piece was rapidly
becoming a conundrum.
Clearly, both objects had been
produced by manufacturing methods
identical to those utilized in the
production of rimfire cartridge cases and
these similarities yield some insights into
providing chronological information
concerning them. Rimfire ammunition as
we now know it was introduced in
France in 1845 with the appearance of
the .22 Flobert BB Cap, a round
powered only by its priming compound
and intended for short distance arcade
shooting galleries. Such cartridges are
fired by the placement of a percussion
sensitive compound within the cartridge
case adjacent to the rim. 'When impacted
by the hammer of the weapon, the
compound ignites and produces gases
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
which propel the bullet through the
barrel. Continued development of this
diminutive cartridge lead to the production of the first revolvers chambered
for .22 Short cartridges (containing both
the priming compound and a small
charge of black powder) manufactured
by Smith & Wesson of Springfield,
Massachusetts, in 1857 (Barnes 1993:
365). Subsequent demand for small arms
production during the American Civil
War lead to the rapid adoption of this
ignition system to larger calibered
revolver, carbine, and rifle ammunition.
The first of these larger calibered
rimfire cases was the 56-56 Spencer
round patented in 1860 and produced in
quantity beginning in 1862 (ibid.:378).
Various other large caliber rimfire
cartridges (notably the .32 and .41
caliber rounds used in revolvers and derringers, respectively) continued in general but ever declining production until
about World War II (ibid.:372-378).
The basic methods of manufacturing rimfire cartridge cases has
changed little since their introduction
(see Lewis 1972 and Treadwell 1873 for
additional historical information on early
cartridge case production). Simplistically,
such cases are formed by the following
sequential steps: (1) removal of a circular "blank" from a roll of sheet brass
and subjecting it to a "cup" punch which
forms the first of several production
stages; (2) annealing, pickling, and
washing the newly formed brass cup; (3)
drawing the cup into shape; (4) washing
and drying the almost completed case;
( 5) trimming the case to the desired
length; and (6) forming the head of the
case under pressure (see Frost 1990:8-14
for a more detailed account of this
production process). Following this last
Volume 12
1997
step in the case production process, the
actual loading of the round would
commence with the addition of the
priming compound, gun powder, and
emplacement of the bullet.
If the items in question were not
cartridge cases, neither did they appear
to be "stand alone" artifacts serving an
independent :function but rather seemed
to have been produced as elements of
some larger object. The fact that both
"cases" were recovered in domestic
contexts served to support the contention
that they were derived from some item
likely to be encountered in use within a
household. The shape of these items
(effectively a brass cylinder closed at one
end) further suggested that they were
intended to cover (e.g., the tip of a
walking cane) or slip over (e.g., a grease
or oil fitting on a piece of machinery such
as a sewing machine) some elongated or
protruding object. The nature of the
pieces suggested that they were not in
and of themselves expensive objects and
that their discard or loss - though
possibly causing some inconvenience would not be a great monetary setback.
Proceeding on the premise "If you don't
know, ask!", I began seeking input as to
the identity of these look-alike cartridge
cases from colleagues and co-workers.
Admittedly, I was somewhat surprised at
what appeared to be the most likely
:functional explanation for these items
when several individuals observed that
these "cases" seemed to be identical to
protective brass caps placed on the end
of wooden knitting needles produced
"years ago".
Three lines of investigation were
underlaken lo verify lhis suggeslion. If
in fact the subject artifacts were caps
143
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
made to cover the "square" (nonpointed) end of a knitting needle, a bit of
ethnographic study seemed appropriate.
Accordingly, I first visited several fiveand-dime variety stores and looked at the
lines of contemporary knitting supplies
they carried. These visits revealed that
current production needles were produced in a variety of diameters (called
sizes) from either aluminum or fiber glass
and crowned with a cap made of
aluminum which resembled a broad
brimmed top hat in profile. In general
terms, one would say that these items
were similarly configured to the obviously older brass specimens though
they certainly were not identical.
The next investigative step was to
v1s1t several area antique dealers and
personally examine any such implements
in their inventory. This effort failed to
locate any dealer with items of this
nature in stock.
Volume 12
In the process of identifying
older, mass produced goods, historical
archaeologists always have available as a
last recourse various editions of
reprinted mail order house catalogs with
their abundance of illustrations and
glowing product descriptions. Available
for inspection were reprinted editions of
the 1895 Montgomery Wards and 1897,
1902, 1923, and 1927 Sears, Roebuck
catalogs. Because most such reprints are
heavily edited in an effort to reduce both
total page length and resultant printing
expenses, it was noted that the reprinted
editions of the Sears, Roebuck catalogs
for 1897 (Isreal, ed. 1976), 1923
(Schroeder and Tonkin, Inc., eds. 1973),
and 1927 (Mirkin, ed. 1970) had
eliminated those pages referable to
knitting needles. Fortunately, the reprints
of the 1895 Montgomery Wards (Dover
Publications 1969) and 1902 Sears,
Roebuck (Bounty Books 1969) catalogs
retained these pages (Figures 1 and 2)
concerning the lines of knitting supplies
these firms maintained in stock.
Figure 1. 1895 Montgomery Ward excerpt
144
1997
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
Volume 12
1997
Figure 2. 1902 Sears, Roebuck excerpt
Though it has not been possible
to attempt to research the history of
these items through the trade catalogs of
the late 19th century (cf Romaine 1990),
available - though meager - information
from the Ward's and Sears' catalogs
simultaneously suggests that by ca. 1900
knitting needles fashioned from formed
steel wiring were the preferred type of
these implements and, further, that the
brass capped wooden variety was by that
time outdated.
Subject to more intensive
research on the evolution and varieties of
these workaday tools, it appears that
chronologically these look-alike cartridge
cases are reflective of the period ca.
1865 to pre-1895. Though speculative, it
may be noted that while the use of
similar brass caps may have continued on
larger sized needles, the relatively cost
and durability of the steel needles
available by mail order were likely among
the factors which prompted their
purchase in lieu of needles made from
less durable wooden dowels. It is
appropriate that excavators in the region
be aware of such mundane objects and
the possibility of incorrectly identifying
these look-alike cartridge cases with a
function for which they were never
intended.
ACKOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance and cooperation of
Mr. M. Jay Stottman and Ms. Trina C.
Maples of the Kentucky Archaeological
Survey (KAS), Lexington, Kentucky, is
much appreciated in making available for
study the specimen from the Forest
Home farmstead (the KAS catalog
number for this artifact is 15Wa103/422). This historic property is owned by
Col. Robert and Mrs. Cora Spiller. Mr.
Floyd Barmann (Executive Director,
Clark County Historical Society) of
Springfield, Ohio, made available for
examination the example recovered from
the David Crabill house by members of
the society in the process of yard work
on the grounds of this carefully tended
and restored early homestead.
REFERENCES CITED
Ball, Donald B. and Anne T. Bader
1997 Limited Archaeological
Investigations at the David Crabill
House, A Nation Register Property at
the Clarence J. Brown Reservoir,
Clark County, Ohio. U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Louisville
District, Louisville.
Barnes, Frank C.
1997 Cartridges of the World (8th
edition; M. L. McPherson, ed.). DBI
145
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
Books, Inc., Northbrook, Illinois.
Bounty Books
1969 The 1902 Edition of the Sears
Roebuck Catalogue. Bounty Books/
Crown Publishers, New York (heavily
edited but original pagination and
index retained).
Dover Publications
1969 Unabridged Facsimile:
Catalogue No. 57 -Montgomery
Ward & Co. Catalogue and Buyers'
Guide Spring & Summer 1895. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York (an
exceptionally useful, quality
reproduction).
Frost, George E.
1990 Ammunition Making: An
Insider's Story. National Rifle
Association, Washington, D. C.
Isreal, Fred L. (editor)
1976 1897 Sears Roebuck
Catalogue. Chelsea House Publishers,
New York (no page numbers or
index).
Lewis, Berkeley R.
1972 Small Arms Ammunition at the
International Exposition, Philadelphia,
1876. Smithsonian Studies in History
and Technology No. 11, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
146
Volume 12
1997
Mirke~
Alan
1970 1927 Edition of the Sears,
Roebuck Catalogue. Bounty Books/
Crown Publishers, New York (heavily
edited but original pagination and
index retained).
Romaine, Lawrence B.
1990 A Guide to American Trade
Catalogs 1744-1900. Dover
publications, Inc., New York
(originally published 1960, R.R.
Bowker, New York).
Schroeder, Joseph J., Jr. (editor)
1973 1923 Sears, Roebuck
Catalogue. Digest Books, Inc.,
Northfield, Illinois (heavily edited but
original pagination and index
retained)
Stottman, M. Jay
1996 Archaeological Investigations
at Forest Home. Kentucky Archaeological Survey Report No. 11,
Lexington.
Treadwell, Major T. J.
1873 Metallic Cartridges
(Regulation and Experimental) as
Manufactured and Tested at the
Franifort Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa.
Government Printing Office,
Washingto~ D. C. (reprinted, n.d.,
The Armory, West Hurley, New
York).